Drawing the line

Friday

Jun 27, 2008 at 6:00 AM

In its first ruling in nearly 70 years on the precise meaning of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has issued a carefully crafted decision that leaves intact both the individual right to gun ownership and government’s legitimate interest in reasonable regulation of firearms.

At issue was a Washington, D.C., law banning private ownership of handguns and requiring trigger locks on other firearms.

Yesterday’s 5-4 ruling came in a 157-page opinion that plunges deeply into Colonial and early American history, the legacy of English common law, the intent of the Founders, the practices of state militias and the grammar and syntax of the Second Amendment. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia stated, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” The outright ban, he wrote, “under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, … would fail constitutional muster.”

The case began when Dick A. Heller, a resident of the District of Columbia, was denied a permit to keep a handgun in his home. He appealed and won a 2-1 decision at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Yesterday’s ruling upheld the lower court decision.

While the ruling is sure to unleash a flood of commentary from across the ideological spectrum, it is less notable for breaking new ground than it is for reaffirming the firearm ownership right implicit in existing state and local laws and practiced by millions of Americans.

The ruling is also notable for leaving intact the basic notion of reasonable regulation of firearms. While it struck down D.C.’s handgun ban and trigger-lock requirements, it did not touch the licensing requirement, which was never contested by Mr. Heller. Nor in the course of oral arguments did lawyers for either side contend that this case was about the legitimate interest of local, state and federal governments to have some say in how, when and where Americans exercise their fundamental rights.

“Like most rights,” the opinion reads, “the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose … .”

Extremists on both sides of the gun-control debate are likely to use this ruling for further legislative jockeying, but the vast majority in the ideological center can rest easy. The pronouncement from Washington yesterday stands on ground as solid as the Bill of Rights itself, and the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and practiced by Americans for more than two centuries.